Law Commons^™

Law And Judicial Duty, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Two hundred years ago, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall delivered an opinion that has come to dominate modern discussions of constitutional law. Faced with a conflict between an act of Congress and the U.S. Constitution, he explained what today is known as "judicial review." Marshall described judicial review in terms of a particular type of "superior law" and a particular type of "judicial duty." Rather than speak generally about the hierarchy within law, he focused on "written constitutions."

He declared that the U.S. Constitution is "a superior, paramount law" and that if "the constitution is superior to any …

Marbury V. Madison And Modern Judicial Review, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

This Article compares the realist critique of Marbury with several revisionist defenses of that decision. Realists claim to see Marbury as essentially political and thus as the fountainhead of modern judicial review. Revisionists claim to see the decision as legalistically justified and thus inconsistent with current practices. Close examination, however, indicates that, despite sharp rhetorical differences, these two accounts are largely complementary rather than inconsistent. Each envisions Marbury as embodying elements of both political realism and legal formalism. Once the false argument about whether Marbury was either political or legal is put aside, it is possible to trace the influence …

Who Was William Marbury?, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Of all the disappointed office seekers in American history, only William Marbury has been so honored as to have his portrait hung in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court alongside that of James Madison. The two titular protagonists to the Marbury v. Madison dispute had no idea that their original contretemps would ever find its way to litigation, let alone eventual mythic significance as the foundation stone of judicial review.

Rex E. Lee Conference On The Office Of The Solicitor General Of The United States: Clinton Ii Panel, Seth P. Waxman, Walter E. Dellinger Iii, Barbara D. Underwood, Michael R. Dreeben

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

I will say a few words about Dickerson, both because Michael has made it impossible not to and also because in some ways it represents the very best about how all of the wonderful, tried-and-true processes of the SG's Office ought to work. Dickerson was very much like the other case that Michael talked about (which is one of, I think, two significant privilege controversies which the Independent Counsel laid on our doorstep). These cases may have appeared to the outside world as paradigmatically cases in which we would be hearing from the White House, or talking to the White …